The flame retardant thing is baffling me, anyway. Flame retardant fabrics in a vehicle either toting around 10-20 gallons of monumentally flammable gasoline, or hundreds of kWh of lithium batteries. Sure, chief, the fabrics will keep it from catching on fire…
Comment on Chemicals in car interiors may cause cancer — and they’re required by US law:
anon6789@lemmy.world 6 months agoNot sure exactly why you’re getting downvoted as that was essentially the point of the article:
Flame retardant chemicals off-gas or leach from the seat and interior fabrics into the air, — especially in hot weather, when car interiors can reach 150 degrees Fahrenheit.
Advocates argue that the risks of these chemicals outweigh the benefits.
But health researchers have found that the average U.S. child has lost up to 5 IQ points from exposure to flame retardants in cars and furniture. And adults with the highest levels of flame retardants in their blood face a risk of death by cancer that is four times greater than those with the lowest levels, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association.
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Plastic_Ramses@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Its not so they stop from catching fire, its so they dont instantly go up in flames, allowing the people inside to hopefully escape.
cm0002@lemmy.world 6 months ago
This, everyone should go lookup those fire department videos where they demonstrate furniture catching fire with and without flame retardant. The ones without are scary AF
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
It was never about outright preventing fires.
It was always about simply giving passengers the best chance to escape before the fire overwhelms all of the flame-retardant measures.
That said, the carcinogenic and neurological effects do kinda demand that a different solution be found right fucking quick.
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Like cotton/linen fabrics? Cotton is pretty naturally flame resistant. Probably can’t help you on all the plastics in a modern car interior, though.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
All I’m hearing is that you don’t appear to fully understand the conditions under which the materials are mandated to withstand extreme heat and combustion
anon6789@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I think many may now be too young to remember, but in the 70s and 80s, this was a big issue.
NY Times, 11 June, 1983 - DEMAND INCREASES FOR FIRE-SAFE CLOTHING
Clothing that can erupt into flames is coming under increasing scrutiny of consumer and fire safety organizations. They say Federal regulations governing the safety of fabrics used in clothing are too weak to protect the people who are most vulnerable: the elderly.
Those who most often suffer serious injury or death from clothing fires, safety experts say, are retired people who spend many hours of the day in such loose-fitting garments as bathrobes or housecoats. With the exception of children’s sleepwear, for which special regulations were decreed in the 1970’s, Federal standards allow clothing manufacturers to use all but the most extremely flammable fabrics.
Plastic fibers can melt to your skin, which isn’t great considering you’re in contact with the seats and carpets of the car. In an emergency, you’re not prepared to deal with additional complications like that.
The article I linked here is pretty good, so I recommend reading it if you aren’t familiar with this issue from back then. It will really help give you the other side of the issue to see why these chemicals are there to begin with.
orclev@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Synthetic fabrics without flame retardants are basically wearable napalm. You absolutely want flame retardants in your synthetic fabrics because without them if you ever get exposed to a fire you can basically kiss your skin goodbye. If you can’t live with the retardants you better start wearing nothing but 100% cotton clothing. I mean you’ll still burst into flame pretty much instantly like that, but at least it won’t stick to you at the same time.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
additional complications like that
“That”: your pants become bonded to your skin and the car seat
😬
grue@lemmy.world 6 months ago
You mean, in the 70s and 80s it became a big issue because that’s when we started making clothing out of plastic instead of natural fibers.
orclev@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Natural fibers will still combust with shocking speed without flame retardants, they just won’t stick to you while doing so. From the moment of being exposed to flame to the point at which the entire garment is on fire can be as little as a few seconds. No matter the increased risk I still rather keep the flame retardants, because death from large burns is a nasty way to go.
mipadaitu@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The article implies that it’s a long term thing, but doesn’t actually state if it’s better or worse for older cars?
Do people that exclusively buy used cars have less exposure because there isn’t as much off gassing of the newly applied chemicals? Or are older cars more susceptible due to the breakdown over time?
anon6789@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Going by my own car that I bought new in 2008 and still drive, the chemical residue on my inner windshield has been rather consistent throughout the time I’ve had it, so it is still off-gassing after all this time.
There are many unhealthy chemicals in just about every part of the car, and heat cycles keep releasing more of them. The source for the above infographic say many studies have been done, but many sounded like they conflict with each other and many seemed to focus on short term health effects.
bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world 6 months ago
This page (and podcast) mentions cars part-way through, saying 80% of outgassing happens in the first three months.
There are references at the end.
jecht360@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Criticizing cars or the use of cars tends to get a lot of negative feedback.
grue@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Because everybody else has been exposed to the same chemicals too.